Well, I finally heard in my own area of true nastiness to a SAHM. Please note, this is third-hand.

Whilst chatting with an old co-worker yesterday, I heard something that happened to her son and daughter-in-law. These are young people, DiL just graduated from college, Son is still in school. Despite their initial plan for her to return to work after the birth of their baby, they ultimately decided it was best for them for her to stay at home with the baby while Son worked full-time and attended school full-time.

Apparently Son's co-worker hates them for this and has been berating DiL every night when she brings her husband his dinner. The comments made include "My wife works full-time, why don't you?" and "You are using your baby as an excuse to be lazy."

Responding just to the original post. It's important to carefully separate who you mean by 'most people'. Public media culture - magazines, radio talk show hosts, tv news, blogs. Versus people in your real world -family, friends, co-workers, classmates.

I'm clueless, I don't always pick up on other people's vibes, so maybe I just didn't notice it. But I went into sahm-ness expecting to be criticized and didn't find it, at least not the way it's portrayed popularly.

Apparently Son's co-worker hates them for this and has been berating DiL every night when she brings her husband his dinner. The comments made include "My wife works full-time, why don't you?" and "You are using your baby as an excuse to be lazy."

Off topic, I realize, but I would think this qualifies as workplace harassment. I hope the son files a complaint about the treatment.

WOW, THIS IS REALLY SAD. IT SEEMS AS THOUGH ALL MOTHERS, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO ARE BEING JUDGED AND BY EACH OTHER NO LESS. THIS IS A VERY DISAPPOINTING THING TO SEE, WOMEN STRUGGLE ENOUGH IN THIS WORLD FOR EQUALITY, LET'S TRY SUPPORTING EACH OTHER INSTEAD OF BERATING ONE ANOTHER. I HAVE ALWAYS SEEN WOMEN AS THE PEACE MAKERS IN THIS WORLD, AM I ALONE?

I will start... whether you stay at home or work full time, you are important, you are needed, and you are loved.

Nope! The recent brouhaha on Huffpo shows that the idea of women at home remains a powerful image of "what's right" for any number of people who identify as conservative to moderate.

An interesting Salon article notes:

'In short, McInnes’ claim is that the majority of women are naturally predisposed to derive satisfaction from “being domestic and shaping lives” rather than from labor market work. McInnes’ intuition is essentially a condensed and profanity-laced version of a common conservative sentiment. The issue was last raised on the national stage when Hilary Rosen made the fateful mistake of suggesting that Ann Romney, the wife of then presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, had never worked. Romney retorted by quoting her husband to Fox News: “Mitt said to me more times than you would imagine, ‘Ann, your job is more important than mine … your job is a forever job that is going to bring forever happiness.’”

The sort of happiness McInnes and the Romneys refer to when they speak glowingly of motherhood and childcare does sound blissful. Unlike the temporal and profane world of labor for monetary gain, caring for one’s family is routinely imbued with a sort of transcendent, sacred quality. Descriptions of this sort have the effect of casting aspersion on women who work outside the home: With this sort of happiness awaiting you, why would you hold a job?"

However, as the article notes, of two income families, 54% of them would be below or near the federal poverty line if not for the wages of working women.

Not entirely related to what you're saying here, maybe it's the flip side of the same coin, I'm off on a tangent, but the other problem with imbuing motherhood with these forever, transcendent, sacred and glowing qualities is that, ironically, the job holder can more easily be dismissed and trivialized.

Not entirely related to what you're saying here, maybe it's the flip side of the same coin, I'm off on a tangent, but the other problem with imbuing motherhood with these forever, transcendent, sacred and glowing qualities is that, ironically, the job holder can more easily be dismissed and trivialized.

Agreed. If it's such a glowing, transcendent, life-altering experience, then it's its own reward, and the government gets away with putting no value on it and giving no support to families.

Just pointing out to the mom a page back who seemed to believe me agreeing with a previous poster about it being a priority for me to stay at home please read the whole thread before deciding that I was saying that moms that work outside of the home are not making their children a priority!!! I never never said that I have stated over and over in this thread that priorities are subjective and for my husband and my family it was incredibly important for me to stay home therefore we rigorously planned and budgeted to make that a reality ! It sort of goes to the core of our values really that doesnt mean I don't think working moms value their kids. Also whoever said I am judging whoever is not exactly like me and judging rape victims there are always extenuating circumstances throwing out what I said like I pointedly was attacking rape victims is really just trying to cause issue.

I think for the most part society is supportive of sahm's. I say this because roughly half of society are men and men for the most part love being waited on. Don't get me wrong I know 3 men personally that have spent time as sahd's. I used to work 60-100 hrs a week busting my butt working construction. Now I work 24-7 taking care of 3 children under four. Being a sahm is by far more rewarding though there are days I would pay to be back at work! I have friends that work and for the most part we manage to compliment each other on our respective choices. If you find yourself surrounded by those who don't support your lifestyle perhaps it's time to change who you surround yourself with not your lifestyle!

Its interesting to me that people always resort to the extreme accusations that you are judging them etc. and throw words like compassion around in these discussions without apparently knowing the definition of those words. lets take a look at some snippets from the reactionary posts following my last posts where I felt I a was expressing a desire for a healthier society:

"NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO ARE BEING JUDGED" "LET'S TRY SUPPORTING EACH OTHER INSTEAD OF BERATING ONE ANOTHER. " " I think it is truly unfortunate that neither of you can look beyond your own good fortune to empathize" "why drag us through the mud of the mommy wars?" "your posts ... I sense a judgment that is hurtful to me" " It appears that you are coldly reprimanding mothers who are poor or were raped (& the rape resulted in a child) or whose partner lost a job while pregnant ... or really anyone who is not like you." " all this judging that seems to be going on here." "you suggesting my daughter and I deserved to die from birth complications" "please try to be compassionate for the women here who weren't fortunate enough to have the same kind of well-planned life you've had." " I don't like the practice of blaming it on moms" " Maybe we shouldn't judge or pity women who can afford a choice, whatever it may be, but empathize with those who are left with no choices"

um, who exactly is trying to degrade this into a "mommy wars" type discussion?

if someone talks about their pride in having managed to have a long term successful marriage and intact family, do we automatically jump all over them accusing them of judging other families who are single parent or broken families??

if someone talks about having completed their education or a having a successful career, are they automatically seen as judging all those who didnt graduate high school or college or who work at the mcdonalds or turnpike tollbooth?

if you discuss your reality as a WOHM, i dont automatically infer that you are "judging" me or all those who choose to stay home with their children, and I dont see anyone else jumping to that conclusion either.

If a mom talks about "succeeding " at mothering and discusses the choice she's made of being physically with her children, she gets jumped all over and labeled a judger, hater, basher, non-compassionate person and- this a new one even for me - apparently she also wants other moms and their babies to die.!! really? seems really nuts to jump to these kind of extreme conclusions, inferring the intent to condemn others when people share a different experience or reality.

I'm all too familiar with the reactions in these types of discussions, and so i don't usually bother commenting. For me, the one main problem I see with women feeling entitled to leave their babies for all day long every day, is that you cant successfully nurse a child if the baby isnt with you physically. If you try to promote moms being with their babies for the purpose of promoting breastfeeding, and if you even mention anything about the hard facts that bottle fed infants are significantly sicklier and less intelligent than breastfed children, (a choice that results in causing 12 billion dollars -$12,000,000,000 -a year in avoidable health care costs- not even including the breast cancer costs- a burden WE ALL SHARE as taxpayers), and the fact that the majority (90 %) of mothers are not following the recommended guidelines for promoting optimal health of both mother and child, (2 years of breastfeeding- but today only one in ten is getting any mama milk by age 6 months) you are automatically seen as"JUDGER" even though these are widely known and agreed upon facts and figures.

I grow so weary of my attempts to express my opinion of "how can we do better?" or of relating my own realities and choices that have worked for us being twisted into some kind of personal judgement of others. I'm not living AT YOU. I knew I wanted kids and my husband did too , and we planned and set our life up to accommodate my being at home with them for the duration of their early years and beyond. And it has worked out for us. In a time of supposedly "liberated" women, its odd to me that this is apparently such a radical and uncommon idea- that children deserve to physically be with their mothers in the early years, or that a mother's most important job might be right at home. 90 % of us disagree or at least dont make choices that prioritize children, and it follows that we don't value mothering, or the role of SAHMs.

T2009, can you point out exactly the wording of mine that you seem to think indicates a personal 'judgement " of you "that is hurtful"?

My idea that children and families deserve better is not a judgement. Its my true opinion, that we are not currently valuing our children as being worthy of our time, based on continued observations of the behavior of the majority of people around me. Children are predominantly seen as burdens or problems or things to schedule away in kiddie kennels and at daycare "camp".

preemie princess- can you point out exactly where it is you think I said that you and your daughter "deserved to die"? I've re-read my post a couple times and I just dont see it. This accusation seems really hysterically overly defensive to me. I'm not personally judging you, nor saying you deserve to die. I have an opinion, and a personal experience that shows its possible to work AND be a full time SAHM too.

Its hard to participate in conversations where people jump to these ridiculous conclusions.

IMO the SAHM role is NOT valued, and this is a logical progression of the reality that children in our culture are not valued.

really! I agree! If you actually look up the word "compassion" in a dictionary, you will see it does not mean simply having empathy for others or putting yourself in their shoes , but you'll find the definition includes a desire to see or effect CHANGE. To do somethig about it except patting each other on the back and agreeing that unhealthy behaviors are OKAY. I'd really like to see more than (the current rate) 10 percent of babies getting some mama milk, instead of whats currently going on where 90 percent of mothers are prioritizing numerous other things than their babies. To see a change toward an increase in breastfeeding success rates, I think its key that babies have the mother's breasts near enough to them to be able to have access to them to nurse, not just by providing "pumping rooms" which encourage lengthy hours of separation of mothers from their babies. So thats where I'm coming from . I know , its a really judgmental and radical idea to expect or wish for mothers to ...parent. ?

compassion - the humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and wanting to do something about it to alleviate it.

oh, and I dont homeschool because luckily our school system is excellent. my complaints are 100% to do with the consequences we repeatedly must face directly because of the choices of other parents not to parent. Not complaints with the school itself.

Its interesting to me that people always resort to the extreme accusations that you are judging them etc. and throw words like compassion around in these discussions without apparently knowing the definition of those words. lets take a look at some snippets from the reactionary posts following my last posts where I felt I a was expressing a desire for a healthier society:

"NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO ARE BEING JUDGED" "LET'S TRY SUPPORTING EACH OTHER INSTEAD OF BERATING ONE ANOTHER. " " I think it is truly unfortunate that neither of you can look beyond your own good fortune to empathize" "why drag us through the mud of the mommy wars?" "your posts ... I sense a judgment that is hurtful to me" " It appears that you are coldly reprimanding mothers who are poor or were raped (& the rape resulted in a child) or whose partner lost a job while pregnant ... or really anyone who is not like you." " all this judging that seems to be going on here." "you suggesting my daughter and I deserved to die from birth complications" "please try to be compassionate for the women here who weren't fortunate enough to have the same kind of well-planned life you've had." " I don't like the practice of blaming it on moms" " Maybe we shouldn't judge or pity women who can afford a choice, whatever it may be, but empathize with those who are left with no choices"

um, who exactly is trying to degrade this into a "mommy wars" type discussion?

if someone talks about their pride in having managed to have a long term successful marriage and intact family, do we automatically jump all over them accusing them of judging other families who are single parent or broken families??

if someone talks about having completed their education or a having a successful career, are they automatically seen as judging all those who didnt graduate high school or college or who work at the mcdonalds or turnpike tollbooth?

if you discuss your reality as a WOHM, i dont automatically infer that you are "judging" me or all those who choose to stay home with their children, and I dont see anyone else jumping to that conclusion either.

If a mom talks about "succeeding " at mothering and discusses the choice she's made of being physically with her children, she gets jumped all over and labeled a judger, hater, basher, non-compassionate person and- this a new one even for me - apparently she also wants other moms and their babies to die.!! really? seems really nuts to jump to these kind of extreme conclusions, inferring the intent to condemn others when people share a different experience or reality.

I'm all too familiar with the reactions in these types of discussions, and so i don't usually bother commenting. For me, the one main problem I see with women feeling entitled to leave their babies for all day long every day, is that you cant successfully nurse a child if the baby isnt with you physically. If you try to promote moms being with their babies for the purpose of promoting breastfeeding, and if you even mention anything about the hard facts that bottle fed infants are significantly sicklier and less intelligent than breastfed children, (a choice that results in causing 12 billion dollars -$12,000,000,000 -a year in avoidable health care costs- not even including the breast cancer costs- a burden WE ALL SHARE as taxpayers), and the fact that the majority (90 %) of mothers are not following the recommended guidelines for promoting optimal health of both mother and child, (2 years of breastfeeding- but today only one in ten is getting any mama milk by age 6 months) you are automatically seen as"JUDGER" even though these are widely known and agreed upon facts and figures.

I grow so weary of my attempts to express my opinion of "how can we do better?" or of relating my own realities and choices that have worked for us being twisted into some kind of personal judgement of others. I'm not living AT YOU. I knew I wanted kids and my husband did too , and we planned and set our life up to accommodate my being at home with them for the duration of their early years and beyond. And it has worked out for us. In a time of supposedly "liberated" women, its odd to me that this is apparently such a radical and uncommon idea- that children deserve to physically be with their mothers in the early years, or that a mother's most important job might be right at home. 90 % of us disagree or at least dont make choices that prioritize children, and it follows that we don't value mothering, or the role of SAHMs.

T2009, can you point out exactly the wording of mine that you seem to think indicates a personal 'judgement " of you "that is hurtful"?

My idea that children and families deserve better is not a judgement. Its my true opinion, that we are not currently valuing our children as being worthy of our time, based on continued observations of the behavior of the majority of people around me. Children are predominantly seen as burdens or problems or things to schedule away in kiddie kennels and at daycare "camp".

preemie princess- can you point out exactly where it is you think I said that you and your daughter "deserved to die"? I've re-read my post a couple times and I just dont see it. This accusation seems really hysterically overly defensive to me. I'm not personally judging you, nor saying you deserve to die. I have an opinion, and a personal experience that shows its possible to work AND be a full time SAHM too.

Its hard to participate in conversations where people jump to these ridiculous conclusions.

IMO the SAHM role is NOT valued, and this is a logical progression of the reality that children in our culture are not valued.

" It's time COMPASSION, EMPATHY, and UNDERSTANDING entered the debate about SAHMs/ WOHMs. "
really! I agree! If you actually look up the word "compassion" in a dictionary, you will see it does not mean simply having empathy for others or putting yourself in their shoes , but you'll find the definition includes a desire to see or effect CHANGE. To do somethig about it except patting each other on the back and agreeing that unhealthy behaviors are OKAY. I'd really like to see more than (the current rate) 10 percent of babies getting some mama milk, instead of whats currently going on where 90 percent of mothers are prioritizing numerous other things than their babies. To see a change toward an increase in breastfeeding success rates, I think its key that babies have the mother's breasts near enough to them to be able to have access to them to nurse, not just by providing "pumping rooms" which encourage lengthy hours of separation of mothers from their babies. So thats where I'm coming from . I know , its a really judgmental and radical idea to expect or wish for mothers to ...parent. ?

compassion - the humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and wanting to do something about it to alleviate it.

WANTING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT

This is the sort of obnoxiousness that gives people a low opinion of SAHMs.

I'm a SAHM (well, less so these days) and don't feel discriminated against (not that that really matters). Maybe it's just from where I sit (and thick skin) but I feel like I see much more negativity towards mothers who work outside the home. I also know many mothers who work outside the home and have successful breastfeeding relationships and do all that "AP" stuff.

IdentityCrisisMama -- I agree. The general feeling in my area of the country and amongst those I talk to locally here in the Midwest, is that while some working mothers may be "better" moms than some SAHMs, if you took the "best" SAHM and the "best" WOHM and made them compete in some sort of "Mom Olympics", the SAHM would always win. Sad that certain people think that way, but that is the vibe.

I support homebirth that meets the qualifications set forth in the AAP's 2013 policy on homebirth.

" In a time of supposedly "liberated" women, its odd to me that this is apparently such a radical and uncommon idea- that children deserve to physically be with their mothers in the early years, or that a mother's most important job might be right at home. 90 % of us disagree or at least dont make choices that prioritize children, and it follows that we don't value mothering, or the role of SAHMs."

Out of curiosity, which is better -- an involved and responsive caregiver who is not a mom, who provides stimulating experiences and interacts with the child and a mom who is depressed, stressed out, unresponsive and parks her child in front of the TV most of the day? Is care by a mom always better just because she's a mom? Is it possible for people to prioritize different things with the same ultimate goal of "prioritizing children"? What if I prioritize being able to provide 4 years of a fully paid for college education for my children over breastfeeding?

When you meet an adult at the store, or at a party can you tell that they were raised with a SAHM? Or does all this just shake out in the wash, assuming that the adult in question was raised with love, care and attention to his or her needs?

I support homebirth that meets the qualifications set forth in the AAP's 2013 policy on homebirth.

You're new. But, if what's important is the money.... moms should probably get to work.

In my 12 years as a good old "AP" mama it has become clear to me that "we" can sometimes make a pretty bad name for ourselves and, in the fall out, a bad name for all the things "we" hold dear. Don't do it.

If breastfeeding is important - do it, mama!! Work to support breastfeeding. Do that whether that be for WOHMS or SAHMs. But, don't bring us down.

While it's definitely not all about money, let's not forget that statistically it is poverty NOT whether a parent is SAH or WOM that has the biggest impact on child outcomes.

Let's not forget that poverty/ lower income isn't the be all and end all in child outcomes.

My daughter is fed a well-balanced diet, even though most of it is frozen, dry or canned, but always made by mom or dad with love. WIC has been a tremendous help in keeping food in our home.

My daughter has never been watched by anyone but me, hubby, or grandma & grandpa, all of whom are loving, involved, and attentive.

She watched absolutely no TV before her second birthday, and we strictly limit screen time of all varieties.

My daughter has her own library of books-- hundreds-- which I have scrounged together pennies to purchase at thrift stores, library sales, and yard sales. She is read no less than a dozen books a day. At three years old, she is beginning to read. Take that, poverty line!

Just because a woman is a SAHM does not guarantee she is an involved, loving, attentive mother, either. As I've said in previous posts, being a WOHM or SAHM is often not really a choice at all, so there should be no negativity either way. I've met a handful of really inattentive, distant, cold mothers who are SAHMs, usually out of financial necessity. I choose not to associate with people like that.

Statistics don't always paint a clear bigger picture, about parents lifestyle choices, community issues, etc that could be affecting a child in poverty, but not a child in a more affluent community.

There are only two lasting bequests we can hope to give our children. One of these is roots, the other, wings.

Oh, and that $13 billion in the study you reference is NOT increased pediatric healthcare costs but rather primarily lost wages.

Preemie -- i certainly agree that there are any number of parents doing a wonderful job in very tight economic circumstances (some of them are in our family or are friends). However, statistically poverty is still a huge factor in child outcomes and that is what I think our government should be addressing rather than subsidizing SAH parenting as some have suggested.

I support homebirth that meets the qualifications set forth in the AAP's 2013 policy on homebirth.

My first two kids were never even left with a babysitter (no family to help us out) until they were both after 2. I felt very strongly that I had to be there for them 24/7.

I had my third daughter after a five year gap. I love her to death, but I started leaving her for short stints at the Y child care from pretty early on, and I'm considering starting her part-time in daycare from the summer on. I love the staff there and feel good about their program. I'm much less fanatical about her being with me 24/7. I'm just less fanatical about parenting in general now. She is still nearly exclusively bf at 9 months, we still co-sleep, etc. But I care a lot less about doing things in one particular rigid way. She has a stroller that we use sometimes even though generally she is worn. She has some jars of baby food occasionally because they're convenient. She has cloth diapers but if I'm feeling lazy I'll buy sposies for a few days. We'll get a babysitter for a date night. Etc.

This doesn't have much to do with the original debate, other than to point out that there are middle ways as well - and being a SAHM without a single break isn't really as essential as I once thought it was. (Of course it depends on the kids too; some just want mama for a while, that's a different issue altogether.)

As a mom of a preemie, I can add that exclusive pumping is very difficult. If I *had* to go back to work, I probably would not have succeeded in EBF her. Without pulling strings in the NICU and allowing me to room in with my daughter on the pediatric unit, I would not have succeeded. Without the help of her uncle (very good friend of mine, no blood relation) moving in for her first two months out of the hospital, I don't think I would have succeeded. She would feed up to 18 times a day- he'd take her for a couple hours once or twice a week and make me nap, and he'd prepare a bottle of my milk to feed her. Hubby was working 7 days a week at the time, just to make ends meet financially.

If mama's able to pump successfully, a caregiver who is not mom can lovingly bottle-feed mama's milk. Granted, BF can only be done by mama. Not everyone can pump successfully. This is a discussion for a different forum, but suffice it to say not every woman is able to do it, either physically or emotionally. I dealt with bruised breasts, bloody nipples, and eating straight fenugreek like it was Skittles, for her first 3-4 months. I spent about 6 hours a day pumping. EBF a preemie is next to impossible for a WOHM. I feel it bears mentioning because it was brought up on this thread.

There are only two lasting bequests we can hope to give our children. One of these is roots, the other, wings.

Being able to be a SAHM is kind of a privilege these days, economically. Maybe that's partly because as a society we seem to want a high standard of living, but also because in a "typical" nuclear family (mom, dad, kid(s)) - which mind you isn't so typical anymore - that "dad" guy makes less now to support an entire family than he did a few decades ago, relatively speaking. In my family, which is a mom, dad, and toddler, we are doing OK without me making money right now (I stay at home, but also I go to school part-time w/financial aid and will graduate soon). Later, it will be harder with 2 kids. So I will probably work part-time for a while, and I will eventually have a job where I schedule my time (around school, etc.). I also want the job I'm working toward, just not in a way that interferes too much with family time.

My situation is a privilege! Some moms have a partner who does not make a hearty salary. Some moms don't have a partner to help (or even someone from their own family), or have a deadbeat dad who skipped out while she was pregnant. And, some moms want to go back to work earlier than others because they absolutely love their work. They shouldn't have to feel guilty. Other caregivers can offer the child stable attachment and education. Hopefully, we all do he best we can with what we've got and the choices we make.

I do think now there is an attitude that a SAHM mom who is home while kids are at public school is living a life of privilege (sometimes this gets framed as frivolous, indulgent, etc.). And maybe decades ago this would be seen as the "best" arrangement, when homemaking was a more important thing to "get right" and having a wife who could stay at home and not work was a point of pride for a man. As far as I'm concerned, to each his own. I think there are a lot more ways to be a person who contributes to society than having a job.